Devout ejaculation
| Thanks! ❤ |  |  |
| thanked 41 times | ||
Fool Emeritus on 2019-04-03
Tristana | 1. | Stossgebet |
| 2. | Glaubenskraft |
| 3. | Sanctus Dominus |
Fool Emeritus
Thu, 04/04/2019 - 07:37
Ja, das habe ich auch gefunden- ein schnelles Gebet, die man macht in Lebensgefahr, wann es gibt keine Zeit für richtige Gebet. Aber "devout ejaculation" macht bestimmt mehr Sinn, und ich glaube, war die beabsichtige Bedeutung.
Ich weiß auch, das Latein ist nicht korrekt. Ich habe es so übersetzt weil die richtige Übersetzung macht (für mich) kein Sinn, und lässt den Satz gebrochen. Ich wundere mich, ob es beabschitig ist, oder ob Attila Dorn kennt auch seine Latein nicht so gut XD
PaotrLaouen
Sat, 13/06/2020 - 12:20
It's not incorrect Latin. It's just fake latin!
Latin is regarded as a "dead" language; but its murderers are still at work!
Natur Provence PaotrLaouen
Sat, 13/06/2020 - 14:44
If soit is, then it IS pseudo-latin. Over 75% of the declension forms are wrong. And where they seem formally right, they are unjustified and meaningless, in spite of the efforts of the translator(s).
"Fornicatio", for instance, can't be "fornicators". It is "fornication", and nothing else.
"Sacrilegum", acc. masc. sing., can't refer to any word in the sentence
"Peccatoribus", dat.abl. plur., doesn't make sensen, nor does "patrum", gen. plur. Shall we translate "God for the sinners of Jesus' fathers" ?
"Oremus per coitum" is not "for sex", but "by means of a meeting" (coitus has no sexual meaning in proper Latin)
"partis Deum", with "partis" in the gen. and "Deum" in the acc. is grammatically impossible, and therefore untranslatable.
"libidum" is an unheard form. Grammatically, it should be either "libidinem" or "libidine" ("in" alows accusative or ablative). Or else "libidinum", gen. pl. But what does that mean?
"crucem meum", should be "meam", since "crux" is fem. But the accusative is unjustified.
"phallus" should be in the vocative: "phalle"
"dominum" referring to the same worde should be in the same case: "domine"
"evaginatio": possibly for "evaginate" (following the attempt of translation).
But ther are other possibe constructions to try to solve that gibberish, for instance: "Ave evaginatio (voc.) phalli domini (gen.). That doesn't make better sense, anyway. Besides, "evaginatio" is unknown to classical latin.
"ferrum corporalium", litterally "iron (or blade) of corporal (things or beings)". Nonsensical.
"virgum" is most probably for "virginum", "of the virgins"
Sciera
Sat, 13/06/2020 - 17:18
The accusative can also be used as exclamation, therefore these cases can be considered correct (even though the authors of the text were likely not aware of it).
But I do agree, and I think this applies to most of the artist's lyrics. I'll take a look and re-categorize accordingly.
PaotrLaouen
Sat, 13/06/2020 - 17:54
Of course I know exclamatory accusative. But I can't see any place where it could apply here. We have mainly invocations calling for vocative.
Sciera
Sat, 13/06/2020 - 18:45
You're right - should have taken a closer look. Often, Pseudo-Latin texts can be "saved" somehow by just assuming everything's an exclamation, but here it really doesn't work well.
And kudos to you for knowing the exclamatory accusative - I had Latin lessons in school for 7 years and straight As and I'm pretty sure we never learned that one, only heard of it years later.
PaotrLaouen
Sat, 13/06/2020 - 19:58
In fact, it is less common than grammars would let you expect. It's often substituted by nominative: "Felix culpa", says Augustinus. I don't remember exactly what is the official interpretation of "O tempora, o mores"; but it could be nominative as well as accusative.
Putting everything in the accusative is effectively what happened when lower Latin tended towards Romance languages. Should we have a category "Barbarian Latin" between Latin (proper) and Pseudo-Latin?
PaotrLaouen
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 09:43
In fact, I had Barbarian kingdoms in mind (Frankish, Lombardic, Visigothic, etc.).
Sciera
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 14:17
Well if the Latin from there differs enough from classical Latin to warrant translating between them, and if we have at least 3 songs, poems or similar in them, sure!
We already have categories of Old French and Galician-Portuguese (and possibly more), though.
Those you list are Germanic languages however (even though at least part of the people in question certainly also spoke some Latin).
PaotrLaouen
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 14:30
Won't ever happen. It was just a joke. A stupid one, obviously. But people are still requiring translations in "old French" , as though anyone in the world was still able to speak it!
It would be a great achievement if "latin" translations were all in "intelligible latin" (I don't ask for more).
In the present case, what could we understand if there was not the original text right in front?
Don Juan PaotrLaouen
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 14:50
Would it be technically possible to prevent such preposterous requests?
Sciera
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 16:02
Technically yes, those languages could be removed from the list of target languages on the request form.
Considering that there might be cases where people are truly interested in requesting or adding such a translation, we would need to leave it at least as an option in the target language list of actual translations (also in order to handle existing such entries) and I don't know whether those two lists are handled separately by the system or not.
PaotrLaouen
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 17:04
The problem is: how many people would be able to answer such requests. In the field of Romance languages (which I know better), I don't know anyone who would be able to utter (or write) a single sentence in Old French, Old Occitan, Old Catalan... ("old" meaning pre-Gutenberg, at least).
There are some scholars, of course, having fun in speaking Old English or Old Cornish. But these are special cases. I can't imagine anyone trying to write/speak Boccacio's Italian.
Sciera
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 17:03
Well we have some user who translates into Old Church Slavonic.
And people who translate into Latin or Sanskrit at least should be findable.
I'd probably be able to do some coherent translation into Old Icelandic, Gothic or Old High German myself (but it'd take me quite a bit and it'll likely not be very idiomatic).
But I agree that with the languages you listed it's not that likely to find someone capable.
PaotrLaouen
Sun, 14/06/2020 - 14:47
Sorry, I missed the last part of your message. Ordinary people of the areas I mentioned were all speaking some kind of degenerated Latin, with possibly some faint influences of pre-Roman languages in Gaul and Spain. The clergy continued to use a better Latin, at least in writing; while the "aristocracy" (from high peerage to local lordships) spoke german dialects (mostly a-grammatical). It is widely known that Charlemagne learnt writing in his old days; that's how things are reported by Einhardt. But my opinion is that he just learnt Latin.
The matter is very difficult, since we lack evidence: all we have is from Latin-speaking people. We can just make extrapolations from their mistakes. Very uncomfortable, indeed.
Fool Emeritus
Mon, 15/06/2020 - 13:32
Fine. It´s fake Latin. I think we all kind of realised that, I just wasn´t aware that semantics were that crucial for some people. What do we do, then? We leave that untranslated?
Also, let´s not open the can of worms of "old" languages. I have myself done translation into "Spanish (old Castillian)". If I wanted to nitpick, I could just start asking who speaks, or spoke "old Castillian". What is old Castillian? Lionese is part of it, even though "Spanish" spoken in Leon was markedly different from the one spoken in Burgos or Zamora? If so, is Bable also Leonese? They are markedly similar and Asturias was the seed of the Leon kingdom, after all. Then is cantabrian also leonese/castillian? Asturias de Santillana WAS a part of Castille. Did Múdejares speak "old Castillian" as well? Texts seem to indicate maybe not.
Let´s be a bit more fast and loose, ok? I really don´t want to need a degree in History and 29 tabs to correctly find what I´m looking for.
Bunnyvere PaotrLaouen
Mon, 15/06/2020 - 14:49
The big problem is that without grammar no language can be translated, especially those which depend mostly on declensions and conjugating, as is the case for Latin.
The only solution I can imagine is to leave it untranslated, asif it were an unknown language (Etruscan, for instance).
In case there were enough intelligible forms (at least 50%), it woud be possible to make necessary emendations to the rest and result in something intellligible. But "Virgum", as we find it here, is absolutely intelligibe, since the word does not exist, and there is no word around it to give us any hint.
We just can guess that it's about phallus, sex, and fornication. But what does it say exactly? Nobody could say. It's mere glossolalia (scholarly name for gibberish).
For the rest, I perfectly agree about the problem of dialectology, the more as I am a Breton-speaker, a language that involves at least four main dialects (Tregor, Leon, Cornwall and Bro-Wened), and hundreds of village-scale sub-dialects. But they are all still in everyday use; and that is the point: is there anyone in the world who is still able to speak/write Old This or That? And what does exactly mean "Old". As to French, the answer is definitely NO. Nobody would even be able to speak/write French of Moliere's times.
I believe that this possibility was opened following the pattern of English, where "Old English" is to be regarded as a language completely different from Modern English (including Medieval forms of it). The difference is just the same as it is between Latin and modern Romance languages.
"Stoßgebet" heißt auf Englisch "quick prayer", laut einem Onlinewörterbuch. Aber hier ist's ein Innuendo, da "stoßen" auch "to thrust" bedeutet.
Laut einem anderen Wörterbuch bezeichnet man ein Stoßgebet auch als "devout ejaculation"... das würde hier sehr gut passen.
Das Latein beinhaltet auch ein paar Fehler - aber bei dem Text kann man davon ausgehen, dass nicht immer das gemeint ist, was da steht.
E.g. "partis Deum" bedeutet "god of the part" und nicht "parts of god", aber wahrscheinlich war eher letzteres intendiert.